[aleonx3]

No of course not. As said before, I stumbled over that review yesterday, but my decision to skip the K-3 is a year old, and based on forum discussions, not on formal reviews and not on Amazon customers.

Now, a year later, one could re-consider. But it is too late probably, now that a successor becomes more likely? What are the signs?

• Many take the lowered US prices and frequent promotions as an early sign of stock clearance for a direct APSC successor.
• Getting customers used to low prices with frequent promotions cannot be the long-term agenda for a top-of-the-line model?
• Someone stated, that statistically, Pentax APSC bodys have been replaced after 14 months on average. That would be due now. OK, let's allow some more time this time because of the FF development.

What are the signs against it?

• No rumors yet
• Ricoh may see it as more profitable to postpone the K-3 successor launch after the FF launch. What, if the FF is expensive but a real big-bang? Then a good number of Pentaxians wanted to get it immediately, without waiting for a K-3 successor.
  But if the K-3 successor was launched first or at the same time, and shared most technology advances with the FF, just the sensor being a bit smaller, and overall much cheaper, then this would be the body most Pentaxians wanted to go for.

One more reason why you should discard that review (as k-3 AF is inferior)...if the k-3 replacement comes in 12 months later...
Plus, you will be paying more for k-3 replacement for sure.... unless money is not an issue for you...

[Frater]

Plus, you will be paying more for k-3 replacement for sure.... unless money is not an issue for you...

Fair point, also because the introductory price may be too high to be appealing from day one. Most may want to wait a few further months for initial prices to come down.
But I hope that Ricoh wouldn't dare to lift the price for an APSC body above its competition, or even near to entry-level FF bodys. A K-3 successor should be cheaper than the K-3 itself when it came out.

[Rondec]

There is still room for improvement with the K3 auto focus, primarily with regard to tracking auto focus. It is significantly better than the K5 II, but it still can get better. As to things that Ricoh can improve with a K3 sequel, I would look primarily at video. Better Codecs and allowing for mechanical shake reduction.

I believe that the K3 sequel is still a good year off. Ricoh is working on the full frame camera right now which will delay any K3 release till after that (October?). Beyond which, hopefully Sony will have a new sensor by then. Hopefully not just increasing megapixel count, but improving dynamic range, maybe allowing binning of pixels for better high iso performance. Otherwise, as Frater says, I think most people who own a K3 will skip it.

[Shanti]

I shot with a K5 for a long time and own a K5 II and a K3 currently. The K3 is hands down better with regard to auto focus than the K5 II. Anyone who says otherwise has not calibrated their lenses are has some odd settings on their camera. It is entirely possible to have odd settings. Pentax significantly updated the auto focus module, introducing more (and smaller) auto focus points. There are also more modes available along with settings to let you decide if you need focus confirmation in AF-C mode or not.

All of that said means that I trust my K3 signifnificantly more in the auto focus department than the K5 II. The K5 II is fine for people, but as you say, it has large auto focus points and if you are trying to focus on an eye, you may focus on the chin or their shirt by accident. Doesn't happen with the K3.

If you really have struggled as much as you say, than a K3 may be in order. At this point, the camera is no longer the obstacle to focus, but often the lens. SDM lenses just can't seem to keep up with much movement. I'm quite interested to see how the newer lenses do in these settings.

As not having tried the K3, have the K5II..is it really correct the AF is so much better? using mostly DA*300 & with 1.4 TC,very hard to lock focus on birds sometimes / inbetween branches is hit & miss..
I need accurate AF & tracking with tele lenses,and not sure whether to go the Nikon way----pity no where here to even touch a K3

[derekkite]

As not having tried the K3, have the K5II..is it really correct the AF is so much better? using mostly DA*300 & with 1.4 TC,very hard to lock focus on birds sometimes / inbetween branches is hit & miss..
I need accurate AF & tracking with tele lenses,and not sure whether to go the Nikon way----pity no where here to even touch a K3

Substantially better with that lens. The focus points are small. The limit is the speed of the lens focus mechanism.

[Shanti]

You are trolling. Get some experience with the K-3, then come back. We are all intimately acquainted with the quirks advantages and failings of the K-3 because we all shoot hundreds of shots a week with it.

If all you are doing is quoting reviews of others, maybe you could dig through the long threads that I personally posted reviewing the autofocus of the K-3 based on my personal experience. Maybe you can quote when I said that the
DA*300 was like a new lens on the K-3.

.

Can you give some concrete examples? as the DA*300 is my main lens & would like to know if its so much better on a K3? FF is too long a wait & I need the crop factor of APS-C for that lens

[derekkite]

Can you give some concrete examples? as the DA*300 is my main lens & would like to know if its so much better on a K3? FF is too long a wait & I need the crop factor of APS-C for that lens

When I had the K5, I shot with the DA*300 and the Sigma 150-500. The sigma was much better autofocus. I couldn't thread the needle with the DA*300 in busy scenes, it was too unpredictable. In flight or in the open it was ok. The K-3 made it much better. It is still slow to operate, but it is accurate and the IQ is very nice.

I PM'd you with some links to photos for examples.

It will be interesting to see how the 150-450 measures up. If it is sharp and the focus is quick, it could be a very good option for Pentax shooters.

I have no experience with the K5ii. It introduced low light focus iirc, and was an improvement on the K5.

[clackers]

using mostly DA*300 & with 1.4 TC,very hard to lock focus on birds sometimes / inbetween branches is hit & miss..

Using Canon or Nikon, shooting wildlife between foliage calls for manual focus skilz, Shanti. You might not get a second chance!

[Shanti]

Using Canon or Nikon, shooting wildlife between foliage calls for manual focus skilz, Shanti. You might not get a second chance!

Yes I know,but when I override the AF with manual it doesn't work alot of the times? especially in branches etc.. a clear shot is ok..is there some settings I've missed

[reh321]

Using Canon or Nikon, shooting wildlife between foliage calls for manual focus skilz, Shanti. You might not get a second chance!

That is one of the reasons I'm happy using a Q7 with adapted long lenses to shoot BIT (Bird in Tree) - I've found that I have to go to manual regardless of whether I'm using my Canon Rebel with a native lens or the Q with longer reach via an adapted lens.

[clackers]

Yes I know,but when I override the AF with manual it doesn't work alot of the times? especially in branches etc.. a clear shot is ok..is there some settings I've missed

But it's Quick Shift isn't it?


So you leave the camera on AF, half-press the shutter to get close, and without releasing, manually focus to get the eye of the robin instead of a leaf?

[derekkite]

But it's Quick Shift isn't it?


So you leave the camera on AF, half-press the shutter to get close, and without releasing, manually focus to get the eye of the robin instead of a leaf?

Or better, set back button focus.

[clackers]

Or better, set back button focus.

True dat.


As a K-30 user it's a bit of a nuisance since I like and use the AE/FL lock button.

[Shanti]

But it's Quick Shift isn't it?


So you leave the camera on AF, half-press the shutter to get close, and without releasing, manually focus to get the eye of the robin instead of a leaf?

Yes,but when I do that it no workie!! only once in a while?? so I just turned off in menu..AF S set to release priority

[drypenn]

But you are right, everyone on the forum who has actually tried both says the Nikon AF is faster, but usually that's the only thing they think is better.

So true!